Achieving the 17 sustainable development goals within 9 planetary boundaries

Near-term gains on socio-economic goals under the 2030 Agenda could reduce the Earth system ‘safety margin’ represented by the nine planetary boundaries. We built an intentionally simple global systems simulation model, Earth3, that combines a socio-economic model of human activity with a biophysical model of the global environment. Earth3 fills a key gap in the family of integrated models, by being capable of simulating the complex dynamic implementation challenge of the full 2030 Agenda. Earth3 generates consistent, transparent pathways from 1980 to 2050 for seven world regions. With these pathways, we assess the extent to which the 14 socio-economic SDGs are achieved and quantify the associated pressure on planetary boundaries to calculate endogenously the extent to which the three environmental SDGs are achieved. Sensitivity analysis indicates uncertainty of the order of ±20% in the number of SDGs achieved and in the biophysical safety margin. The Business-as-Usual scenario indicates that the social and environmental SDGs cannot be achieved together, nor within the planetary boundaries. Combined with an index tracking effects on people’s wellbeing and with simple formulations that keep assumptions transparent, Earth3 can help identify and communicate policies that could improve the global sustainability situation.

[1]  Johan Rockström,et al.  The Empirical Bases for the Earth3 Model: Technical Notes on the Sustainable Development Goals and Planetary Boundaries , 2018 .

[2]  Markus Hametner,et al.  Sustainable Development in the European Union. Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context (2019 edition) , 2019 .

[3]  Dennis L. Meadows,et al.  Limits to growth : the 30-year update , 2004 .

[4]  A. Mol,et al.  Global environmental politics and governance: a networks and flows perspective , 2012 .

[5]  J. Randers How Fast Will China Grow Towards 2030 , 2016 .

[6]  Emmanuel Saez,et al.  World inequality report 2018 , 2018 .

[7]  Keywan Riahi,et al.  A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways , 2013, Climatic Change.

[8]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Collateral transgression of planetary boundaries due to climate engineering by terrestrial carbon dioxide removal , 2016 .

[9]  W. Collins,et al.  Evaluation of climate models , 2013 .

[10]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[11]  W. Lutz,et al.  Demographic and Human Capital Scenarios for the 21st Century: 2018 assessment for 201 countries , 2018 .

[12]  Yaman Barlas,et al.  Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics , 1996 .

[13]  S. Busch,et al.  Identifying Sustainability and Knowledge Gaps in Socio-Economic Pathways Vis-à-Vis the Sustainable Development Goals , 2018 .

[14]  Bob Frankston,et al.  Beyond limits , 1997 .

[15]  O. ZAHN,et al.  Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World , 2009 .

[16]  J. Syvitski,et al.  Methods and approaches to modelling the Anthropocene , 2016 .

[17]  Ulrich Goluke,et al.  Earth3 model system , 2018 .

[18]  J. Rockström,et al.  Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet , 2013, Nature.

[19]  S. Solomon The Physical Science Basis : Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2007 .

[20]  R. Feenstra,et al.  The Next Generation of the Penn World Table , 2013 .

[21]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  Modelling feedbacks between human and natural processes in the land system , 2017, Earth System Dynamics.

[22]  Jørgen Randers,et al.  A user-friendly earth system model of low complexity: the ESCIMO system dynamics model of global warming towards 2100 , 2016 .

[23]  G. Schmidt-Traub,et al.  SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. Global responsibilities. Implementing the goals. , 2018 .

[24]  Julia K. Steinberger,et al.  A good life for all within planetary boundaries , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[25]  Jonathan D. Moyer,et al.  Alternative pathways to human development: Assessing trade-offs and synergies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals , 2019, Futures.

[26]  P. Newell The Political Ecology of Globalization , 2012 .

[27]  Detlef P. van Vuuren,et al.  Horses for courses : analytical tools to explore planetary boundaries , 2015 .

[28]  Will Steffen,et al.  The topology of non-linear global carbon dynamics: from tipping points to planetary boundaries , 2013 .

[29]  Anthony Mcgrew,et al.  Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture , 2000 .

[30]  D. Vuuren,et al.  Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model , 2015 .

[31]  S. Seneviratne,et al.  Concerns of young protesters are justified , 2019, Science.

[32]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet , 2015, Science.

[33]  Graciela Metternicht,et al.  National pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A comparative review of scenario modelling tools , 2016 .

[34]  Veronika Eyring,et al.  Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2013 .

[35]  Kesten C. Green,et al.  Simple Versus Complex Forecasting: The Evidence , 2015 .

[36]  Kate Raworth,et al.  A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? , 2012 .

[37]  Ulrich Parlitz,et al.  Sustainability, collapse and oscillations in a simple World-Earth model , 2017 .

[38]  Richard E. Klosterman,et al.  Simple and Complex Models , 2012 .

[39]  S. McLaren,et al.  Exploring the Linkages Between the Environmental Sustainable Development Goals and Planetary Boundaries Using the DPSIR Impact Pathway Framework , 2018 .

[40]  J. Randers,et al.  Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  F. Chapin,et al.  Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity , 2009 .

[42]  Michael Zwicky Hauschild,et al.  The challenges of applying planetary boundaries as a basis for strategic decision-making in companies with global supply chains , 2017 .

[43]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Taxonomies for structuring models for World-Earth system analysisof the Anthropocene: subsystems, their interactions andsocial-ecological feedback loops , 2018 .

[44]  L. Codispoti The limits to growth , 1997, Nature.

[45]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Closing the loop: Reconnecting human dynamics to Earth System science , 2017 .

[46]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Clouds and Aerosols , 2013 .

[47]  M. Wackernagel,et al.  Making the Sustainable Development Goals Consistent with Sustainability , 2017, Front. Energy Res..

[48]  N. Stern,et al.  Unlocking the inclusive growth story of the 21st Century: accelerating climate action in urgent times , 2018 .